Questions and Answers.pdf

1. Questions: Received "9.15.2020

1. Please confirm that modernization works has to be done at site; we are concerned about the workflow being disturbed on that test stand for a period of time.

2. Not sure we will need to, but just in case is there a possibility to visit the facility to look at condition of test stand, etc.?

Answer: Question #1

1. The test stand will remain on site, however components may be removed and worked offsite (a Temporary Issue Receipt will need to be signed for any components to be taken).

2. Yes we are open to site visits.

2. Questions: Received "9.16.2020

1. Is it possible to move the existing test stand from Tinker to the contractor’s facility where the upgrade could be accomplished? Is that possible or will all work be required to be accomplished at Tinker?

2. Can you confirm the proposal eval factors are lowest bid/technically acceptable. I see it in the solicitation doc, just want to confirm.

3. IAW the SOW para 12.1.1, GFP for use on base is not considered GFP. Will each UUT be available for use during this project (preliminary testing, form,fit checks etc)?

4. We would like to request an extension to the proposal due date

5. The SOW lists known missing components, but there are certainly going to be other parts that will need to be replaced once discovered. Will there be an “over and above work” clause like FAR 217.7702 in the contract to cover items discovered during the course or performing the test stand modernization?

6. Is there any expectation to clean and/or paint the test stand as part of this project?

7. What level of automation is desired for the test stand (for TPS, PLC/DAQ development)?

8. Is a site visit possible at this time?

Answer: Question #2

1. The test stand will remain on site, however components may be removed and worked offsite (a Temporary Issue Receipt will need to be signed for any components to be taken).

2. Yes, I can confirm that the proposal eval factors are lowest bid/technically acceptable.

3. Yes, each UUT and mounting adapter will be available for use on base. All required UUTs will be provided at the scheduled correlation test time frame. For UUT needs other than correlation we would need a date annotated in the IMS to make the UUTs available, otherwise all the adapters will be present but only the UUTs on hand will be available.

4. At the current time, we are not extending the proposal due date. If we do decide to extend the due date in the future, we will contact all the interested vendors to notify them.

5. We do not anticipate including an "over and above work" clause.

6. Yes the test stand needs to be clean per SOW sections 2.4.11, 3.1.25, 3.2, 4.7.1, and 9.5. Painting would need to be done if new components were added (such as an external cabinet) or as needed to satisfy SOW section 3.2 “The final modernization design of the pump test stand shall be ` neat, tidy, and match existing test stand color.”

September 28, 2020 Questions & Answers: PUMP TEST STAND MODERNIZATION

FA8125‐20‐R‐0027

7. Per SOW section 3.9.9 the PLC must have three separate levels of access. The TPS would range from semi-automatic to full manual based on the access of these levels per there descriptions. At the operator level the tester must be prompted before continuing (similar to the testing procedures section in SOW Appendix G) and as noted in SOW section 3.13.2, so full automatic is not desired at this level. For the background process of the PLC/DAQ these would be automatic but with override capabilities at the administrative level, as noted in SOW sections 3.13, 3.13.1, 3.13.2.1, 3.13.2.2.

8. Yes we are open to doing site visits.

3. Questions: Received "9.16.2020

1. We would like to request 9H6-5-5-3, that appears to be the only referenced T.O. we are missing.

Answer: Question #3

1. Per SOW Appendix I note: “The B-52 T.O. is Distribution E and will require a request for access to the Technical Order Distribution Office (TODO). Request will need to be made to aflcmc.ezgtp.PubSale@us.af.mil with DD Form 2345 attached.” Please note that the test parameters from TO 9H6-5-5-3 fall within the limits of the other UUTs, so if the minimum and maximum pressure, speed, and flow can be met as required by the other UUTs

4. Questions: Received "9.21.2020

1. In the SOW, Proposal by Contractor, there is a request for itemized pricing breakdown. However, there is only one line item in the Solicitation. Would the Government like a further breakdown? If so, please advise.

Answer: Question #4

1. You only need to provide the price for the one CLIN listed on the solicitation.

5. Questions: Received "9.22.2020

1. The SOW calls out drawings to be IAW MIL-STD 31000B Level 3. Does this requirement apply to the modernization effort only or the entire test stand?

2. If it applies to the entire test stand, are current drawings up to the standard? And will complete drawing sets be supplied to the contractor?

3. What is the intent of the MIL-STD 31000B Level 3 requirement? This can be a very tedious and expensive effort. Is the intent to enable the gov’t to reproduce the test stand or upgrade portion in the event we go out of business? If so, Adam Mitchell can attest to the detail in our data deliverables and how they meet the intent of MIL-STD 31000B Level 3 with Tinker’s local approval.

Answer: Question #5

1. The Level 3 requirement applies to the modernization effort per SOW sections 3.1.4 and 7.5.3.

2. The current drawing package available is provided as SOW Appendix H, these drawings are Level 2 at best. Other limited information is available in the Illustrated Parts Breakdown (SOW Appendix K). CAD versions of Appendix H documents and any other existing data will be made available to the contractor.

3. The intent of requesting Level 3 drawings is for the government to have the data to be able to reproduce the test stand. It is understood that level 3 drawings are tedious and expensive. Yes, one of the benefits to having Level 3 data is the stand remains supportable even if a contractor goes out of business.

6. Questions: Received "9.23.2020

1. I'd like to request a change to the current contract structure to five CLINS instead of one CLIN. Do you think something like this would be possible? If not, would the gov't entertain some other type of milestone or progress payment structure?

Answer: Question #6

1. Unfortunately, we are only doing one CLIN for this project and will not incorporate progress payments. I apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause.

POC: Rochanda Taylor (405) 734-4328 Rochanda.Taylor@us.af.mil